WHERE THE PROHIBITION PARTY STANDS by Editor

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Nov 7, 1895

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 21, No. 44.

WHERE THE PROHIBITION PARTY STANDS.

By Editor

It has been said by Prohibitionists that the party did not indorse the principle of the union of church and state. We were once an eyewitness to the fact that the state convention of New York repudiated a resolution indorsing the idea, yet at the same time adopting a rest-day plank which logically included it. They have, however, this year come out on the religio-political platform straight and square. After attempting to demonstrate that “Christian men who prize the sabbath [Sunday] as a hallowed institution” have nothing to hope for in the maintenance of a state Sunday law, the Voice, the leading Prohibition paper of the country, in its issue of October 24, thus concludes a two-column article, the last paragraph of which is in black-letter capitals:—

“What, then, shall a Christian voter do?”

“We answer: Let him cast his ballot so that it will stand out to be seen of all men as a declaration against the opening of saloons on Sunday, either by Local Option or any other means; and not only against it on Sunday, but on other days as well. And he can do that only by voting for the ticket of the Prohibition party, whose platform contains this clear-cut declaration:—

“2. We accept as the expression of our political ideal the unanimous declaration of the Supreme Court that this is a Christian nation, and we call upon the people of the state to repudiate and consign to oblivion any political party that shall propose to submit a commandment of the Decalogue to the local option of corrupt cities.”

If this crystallized into government and law does not mean as complete a union of church and state as ever existed during the Dark Ages, language can not frame it. But it is what we may look for more and more. The old parties will yield when the pressure becomes strong enough.

THE Catholic Mirror says some very good things deprecating the extravagance of flowers at funerals, but closes thus:—

“Catholics should not range themselves with those who offend good taste by pursuing to extravagance this pagan custom. The money thus wastefully spent might be more wisely used in masses for the departed, and thus be of real and lasting service to them.”

But what about the pagan festival of the goddess Eastre, over which our Catholic friends make such display? and “masses for the dead,” what are they but pagan in origin?